The Treasury sacked me unfairly and now won't give me my job back

I flagged a concern and was fired from Whitehall. What kind of message does that send to potential whistleblowers?

David Owen flagged concerns that the Treasury had breached the civil service code, but was dismissed on other grounds before a review took place. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian Martin Argles/Guardian

For 18 years I was a civil servant. It was great. The work was stimulating, the environment was supportive, and the subject matter fascinating. I felt that if I got things right I could change people's lives for the better.

Then I flagged a concern. I was worried that some advice to ministers might not be objective – a breach of the civil service code. My managers suggested a review, but it never happened because, completely to my surprise, I was suddenly criticised on other grounds and sacked.

This seemed extraordinary: there was no complaint of incompetence (I had been repeatedly recommended for promotion); nor misconduct. And yet people I respected were saying that over my entire career I had been a problem that was now too difficult to solve. Management were implacable.

So I resorted to an employment tribunal. It confirmed that I had worked well with past managers, that the reason given for dismissal was not the real one, and that I had been dismissed unfairly. It ordered I should be given my job back.

My department has refused. It has not appealed against the decision, but the permanent secretary has decided he disagrees with it. He'd rather the department incur whatever sanctions apply than take me back.

This is surely extraordinary. A rogue employer might set aside what the British justice system has ruled to be fair, but ought a government department do so? And have public resources, starting with the six-figure compensation payout, been properly spent?

I had an unblemished career in the civil service. I spoke out – politely, through the proper channels – and I'm now deprived of my career even though a judge has ordered I be reinstated.

I am not saying I was sacked for blowing the whistle. The tribunal found that at the time I spoke out, managers had other concerns in mind which led them to sack me. Now that the tribunal has found that these worries by no means justified my dismissal, what is preventing the just remedy? Given what has happened, others who are considering whether to flag serious worries may well fear that it is actually whistleblowing that's been held against me and denied me my career.

Treasury solicitors have given me to understand that if I do not "let this go" I'll be portrayed as unreasonable and impossible to manage. The tribunal heard every criticism made of me and agreed with one or two. It then found that nothing stood in the way of rehiring me.

But I'm not letting go, because I still hope for constructive outcomes. Ideally, this will mean a change of heart and the restoration of my career. But I also still hope for an investigation of my original concern: were ministers misadvised and can anything useful be learned? I want to see the sort of change that can foster a more compassionate climate for whistleblowing. Among other things, this will mean better external challenge and accountability, a stronger focus on getting the best from staff, more of an incentive to consult evidence and a greater consideration for justice and fair play. Fundamentally, Whitehall needs a fairer management culture.